Thursday, 28 April 2016

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn attacked the government for making “a political choice” in pursuing its austerity agenda.

“The austerity agenda is “a political choice, not an economic necessity,” declared Jeremy, adding that “you can’t cut your way to prosperity, you have to invest for prosperity”

Addressing the Communication Workers Union conference in Bournemouth, Jeremy called for investment in new rail links and housing. He also called for a zero emission based environmental strategy.

He called for trade union to work across continents in order to confront capital. “It is the power of global corporations to play ducks and drakes with worker’s rights. We must organise ourselves internationally, said Jeremy, who called for the unions to work together with the Labour Party to oppose what the government is doing to working people.

Jeremy acknowledged that the last Labour government did not do enough to repeal the trade union legislation.

He committed to not only defend the Universal Service Obligation in the mail service but seek to extend that mantra to the telecommunications industry. “I have got real trepidation about the dangers posed by the possibility of a break up of BT,” said Jeremy.

Jeremy reiterated the ongoing opposition to the TU Bill with a number of victories secured against the legislation in the House of Lords. He further committed a future Labour government to repeal the Lobbying Act that came in before the last election, with its restrictions on the political activities of trade unions and charities. “Hedge funds and business can have a voice but not ordinary people. We’ll change that,” pledged Jeremy.

He slammed the Tory government for giving tax breaks to the richest 5%, whilst cutting welfare for the disabled. “We’re with the disabled,” said Jeremy.

Jeremy expressed his determination that the next Labour government will bring the rail industry back into public ownership.

He also reasserted his belief in life long education, whilst rallying opposition to the government’s declared intention to academies all state schools. “I value education as a right not something to be bought and sold, said Jeremy.

The Labour leader also backed the NHS, voicing suspicions of a government agenda of privatisation by stealth. He also pledged the Labour Party’s support for the junior doctors. “Back off, we’re supporting the junior doctors,” said Jeremy

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

The
treatment of the 973 investors in the now defunct Secured Energy Bonds (SEB) by
the government and regulators opens up questions that go far beyond this one mini-bond
product.

The
failure to act to protect these investors offers a glimpse of how future
unfortunate savers will be treated when other “unregulated” products like peer
to peer lenders and others go bust. And what is more the government should bare
more than a little of the responsibility, given that it has been the ongoing bailing
out of the banks that has forced savers toward ever more risky products - in
search of some sort of return on their income.

The
SEB investors, lest we forget, put their money into what on the face of it was
a good investment. The funds raised were to be used to buy solar panels to fit
on 22 schools across the UK. The return 6.5% over three years.

Not
an outrageously risky investment on the face of it. Had SEB then done what the
promotional material said they were going to do, all would have been well. But
instead, the Australian parent company CBD Energy decided to siphon off around
£4.2 million for other purposes.

Now
the investors want their money back. After encouraging noises from both the Financial Conduct Authority
(FCA) and Treasury minister Harriet Baldwin, directing investors toward the Financial
Ombudsman for restitution, the wind suddenly changed. Baldwin sheltered in
behind the FCA, which was now qualifying its statements to the effect that the
FO may not be able to do what investors wanted.

The
FO has behaved in the most contrary way, first producing an adjudication to the
effect that they could look at investors complaints, then another adjudication
saying almost the mirror opposite - that they couldn’t. So what is going on?

For
the SEB investors it is now a case of seeing whether an ombudsman will actually
look at their claims and find in their favour.

However,
there is a much wider policy issue here concerning compensation for investors
who have put their hard earnt money into more risky investments. A qualifier should be added here, regarding Secured Energy Bonds, to the effect that had the investors funds been used for the advertised purpose this was not a risky investment.

And
it is here that the government and regulators have to step forward and take responsibility.
The present approach of pass the parcel, at present being deployed against SEB investors simply will not do.

There
was a time not that long ago, when banks were still offering an acceptable
fixed rate return on investments. Then along came the government with its
latest reward to the banking industry for its reckless
behaviour in causing the financial crash of 2008. This reward was the Funding
for Lending Scheme which provided tax payers money to the banks to get lending
going again in the economy. The banks took the money. However, what the latest
piece of largesse from the tax payer did do was remove the need to provide any
sort of reasonable rate to investors looking to deposit their money.

The
result, savers had to look elsewhere to find any sort of return. The inevitable
consequence has been documented with investors turning to more risky products
like mini-bonds, crowdfunders and peer to peer lending.

The
government has done much to promote the, for the most part, admirable peer to peer lending sector - seeing this
as another avenue by which it can get money lent out in order to get the
economy going. (Something lest we forget that the banks, having crashed the
whole economy in the first place, have singularly failed to do – no matter how
big the inducement).

Now,
what the plight of the SEB investors exposes is the tip of what could be a very
nasty iceberg. When other schemes, whether they be peer to peer, mini-bonds or
whatever, go belly up in the way SEB has, what will the government and
regulator response be? Certainly, the simple nothing to do with us mate or a
rereading of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) will not do.

Savers
have been hung out to dry time and time again since the financial crisis of
2008. The low rates on offer to savers are a reflection of a system skewed
totally to propping up the banks.The losers are those who have
simply tried to manage their money carefully and invest prudently to get some
sort of income.

It
is high time the government stepped forward to instruct the regulator to provide
restitution for the SEB investors and put in place cast iron guarantees and
regulations, so that similar abuses don't occur in the future. The time is well overdue for the government to start looking after
investors rather than simply shovelling more and more money toward negligent
banks, which continue to profit on the backs of us all.

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

The threat posed to the British steel industry when Tata Steel announced it was pulling out of the UK has led to calls for re-nationalisation of the industry.

The Tata situation certainly put the issue of nationalisation back in the spotlight, with steel not the only sector that growing numbers would like to see taken back into public ownership.

The post war Labour government carried out the most comprehensive of nationalisation programmes, taking the Bank of England, the coal mines, railways, gas and electricity, iron and steel into public ownership.

Steel was later re-privatised by the Conservative government, before Harold Wilson’s Labour government re-nationalised it in 1967.Steel was re-privatised again in 1988 by Margaret Thatcher’s government, eventually becoming Corus.

Steel was just one part of the mixed economy terrain that had existed during the post war years. The mixed economy had seen government effectively holding the ring, via the public ownership of infrastructure areas like energy, transport, steel, water, post, telecommunications and airways. Private companies formed the other part of the mix.

Just as the Attlee government had created the rubric of nationalisation and a mixed economy, so in 1979, the Thatcher government oversaw the dismantling of this structure and a return to a total market economy. Thatcher began the process that has continued right up to the present day, with Royal Mail being one of the most recent victims of the dash to privatise.

In the RM case, the government was prepared to take over pensions and anything that could be considered a cost to potential private investors, in order to prepare the way. But what RM, and most recently the steel debacle, illustrate is the total lack of any industrial strategy on the part of government.

The privatisation virus has taken such a hold that the Cameron government now seeks to finish the job begun in 1979, selling off as it were to paraphrase former Conservative PM Harold Macmillan the last few remaining bits of the family silver.

In the case of steel, the interests of the 15,000 people who stand to lose their jobs seems to count for little. It has emerged since the crisis broke that the government stood in the way of the EU efforts to block Chinese dumping of steel on the market, thereby undermining European steel industries. The government has also refused to bring in any protective measures that would give the British industry a chance of surviving in world markets.

The steel crisis saw calls for temporary nationalisation voiced, however the voices are growing ever louder calling for more permanent re-nationalisation of a number of former publically owned industries.

Foremost, among the candidates has been the railways - with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn recently declaring that a future Labour Government would look to renationalise.

The case for renationalisation of the railways is strong, with commuters paying astronomical fares for an at times unreliable service. The RMT has argued that since privatisation, more than £11 billion has been misspent. The union claims that fares could be substantially reduced if rail was taken back into public ownership.

There has even been a trial run of what a publically owned railway could look like, when the East Coast Mainline operated under public control between 2010 and 2015. The service increased turnover and profits, with customer satisfaction also up. Indeed, many believed the government was so keen to return the line to the private sector last year because it was proving just how much better a publically owned railway can operate.

Gas, electricity and water are other areas where there have been calls for public ownership to be re-established.

In all these areas, the logic of re-nationalisation is difficult to deny. The common feature of private ownership has been cut backs in staff, increased cost to the consumer and orbiting dividend payments to shareholders. If the money being paid out to shareholders was instead being reinvested in the industry, how can the system not work better?

The better pay, terms and conditions for workers can also only be for the common good of all.

It is also not as though governments, when pushed, will not nationalise failing industry – remember the banks. The reckless behaviour of the banking industry brought the whole world financial system to the brink of collapse in 2008.

In this country, it was only the swift action of the then Labour Government in taking a number of banks into public ownership that managed to save the day. There were no qualms about cost, with £1.2 trillion of government support provided to the financial sector.

The desire to return the banks to the private sector has been paramount with government since nationalisation. But think how much better things could have been if the banks taken into public ownership had been used to create a national bank which could have become a major part of creating a new industrial architecture. A bank that would lend readily and responsibly to those seeking to build businesses and create jobs. The potential was vast but unfortunately spurned.

So the story of the banks plays an important role in the whole rehabilitisation of the idea of nationalisation as a concept. They prove that nationalisation can take place but there needs to be a long term strategy, a strategy that goes beyond that of a holding process before the industry or service in question can be given back to the private sector - often at a discount.

The time for re-nationalisation of a whole swathe of sectors in society, including Royal Mail, energy utilities, steel and railways, has surely come. Moving forward, nationalisation can be put at the heart of a new industrial strategy that seeks to reward workers and citizens alike. It is certainly something that Jeremy Corbyn’s team must be looking at.

Thursday, 7 April 2016

These are exciting days for West Ham United, as the club prepares to bid farewell to its home for the past 100 years, the Boleyn ground.

A place in the top four of the Premiership and the FA Cup final beckon - and if it were not for the meteoric rise of Leicester City, surely West Ham would have got even more plaudits for their performances this season.

It has certainly been a season to remember. New manager Slaven Bilic has brought in great players and a brand of football much more in keeping with the traditions of the club than his predecessor Sam Allardyce.

The pick of the bunch has no doubt been the diminutive French international midfielder Dimitri Payet, who has already been granted iconic status by the fans.

Payet has certainly grabbed the headlines, not least with his amazing free kicks. West Ham may have been denied penalties all season (just one, last August) by a series of below average referees but the presence of Payet in the team, means that every time a free kick is given around the penalty area, there is an excellent chance of the team scoring.

Payet though has not been the sole star, with Argentinian Manuel Lanzini just as inventive on his day as the Frenchman. Then on the home front there has been the amazing progress of Michel Antonio. Signed in the summer from Nottingham Forest for £7 million, Antonio took some time to break into the team. However, when his chance came in November he seized it with both hands. Antonio has since scored seven goals in all competitions (six in the Premiership) in 20 games. The feat is all the more amazing, given that for a good number of recent games Antonio has been playing at right back, still managing to cover huge areas of the pitch and get those vital goals. Much of his play is reminiscent of former Spurs and England player Andros Townsend at his best and it is difficult not to think that if Antonio was at one of the big clubs - favoured by England manager Roy Hodgson - he would have been in the international squad by now.

There have been many heroes for West Ham this season, not least Aaron Creswell at left back and the driving force that is the midfielder and captain Mark Noble (both incidentally also ignored by Hodgson.)

The players have performed brilliantly this season but lets not forget the amazing contribution of manager Slaven Bilic, whose infectious enthusiasm and attention to detail has contributed so much to this successful season.

The selections have been spot on, the use of substitutes exemplary and the manager’s passion for the club unyielding. Few will forget Bilic’s euphoria on the night that West Ham defeated Liverpool 2-1 in extra time to progress into the fifth round of the FA Cup. The manager’s declared desire to win the FA Cup above all else has done much to restore the status of that competition.

Bilic has managed to get more than 100 per cent out of his players for the entire season. He has also looked to bringon young players like Reece Oxford.

So all is looking good for the Hammers as the season enters its final straight with the Olympic stadium beckoning beyond. West Ham are still in the hunt for a top four Premiership place that would bring Champions League football in the first season at the Olympic stadium. A goal that many fans believe would be a lot closer but for some recent dubious refereeing decisions. The club are also still in the FA Cup, hoping to overcome Manchester United in the FA Cup quarter final replay next Wednesday to advance to the semi-final at Wembley.

Many veterans of the Boleyn ground believe this is the best West Ham side since the boys of 86, who so nearly carried off the First Division title in those days. If Bilic’s boys keep going, his side could certainly match if not surpass the glories of that season. It all remains in their hands.

So all is looking good as the old Boleyn ground prepares to close its doors for the final time, the only question for fans is how high those bubbles will go come the end of the season.

Saturday, 2 April 2016

Michael Portillo's documentary Easter 1916: the Enemy Files looked at the rebellion in
Ireland from the British point of view. The programme was comprehensive but
could have been so much better had it not demonstrated that great British
quality of historical amnesia.

So
Portillo could dwell on the successive execution of the rebel leaders but
failed to draw a parallel with how his former boss Margaret Thatcher would repeat
the mistakes with the republican hunger strikers in the early 1980s.

Similarly,
there was what became known as the “North King Street massacre” when soldiers
following the orders of Brigadier-General William Lowe burst into houses on the street shooting and bayoneting 15 civilians. A military court of inquiry was set up following the killings, which found that the soliders had orders to “not take any
prisoners” but took it to mean they were to shoot any suspected rebel. The Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith was advised not to publish the findings for fear they might be used for hostile propaganda.

Roll forward 55 years, then British soldiers shot down innocent civilians on Bloody
Sunday in Derry (1972), the whitewash inquiry was then conducted by Lord Widgery.

Finally,
Portillo did highlight how the way the rebellion had been handled took the
momentum away from those seeking home rule and in favour of the physical force
republican tradition. Again, come forward half a century, which saw the way the
British behaved on Bloody Sunday and the deployment of internment take the
momentum away from the civil rights protesters and toward the physical force
approach of the IRA.

The real point that Portillo did not make in an
interesting programme was the failure of the British to learn the lessons of
history, going on to repeat the same mistakes again and again